PAVE THE ROAD
I've heard a lot of armchair analysis (presumably Ikea-bought armchairs, of course) of the implications surrounding the ascent of Rep. Nancy Pelosi to the position of House Minority Leader. The idea is that this signifies a left turn for Democrats. Some Democrats (on tv, in blogs and elsewhere) warn against this, while Republicans (again on tv, in blogs and elsewhere) are licking their lips in anticipation of opposing a "San Francisco liberal".
TFM would like to say: Slow down there, Bessie.
Just because Pelosi voted against the Persian Gulf of Tonkin resolution last month, it doesn't make her a radical fringe liberal. And just because Pelosi comes from San Francisco, ground-zero for progressive thought in America, this does not signify a left turn for the Democratic party. TAPPED points out, for instance, that the leadership positions of house Democrats are more based in politics than specific policy positions.
Furthermore, Pelosi does NOT represent a turn to the left for the Democratic party. Thing is, it depends on what your definition of "turn" is, hehe. The core positions of the Democratic party have essentially been the same through the entire Bush presidency, and the entire midterm campaign. The problem was that those positions were blurred and obscured by the Democrats' timidity and reluctance to stand up to Bush on just about anything leading up to November, especially on Iraq. Hence we get bloggers all over the place pulling out that Harry S Truman quote, saying that if voters had to choose between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they will always take the real Republican.
Pelosi has expressed the viewpoint of the solid liberal base of the party, and voted against the Iraq resolution. She shows no timidity, while Gephardt Daschle etc have showed so much of it. Both Nancy and the boys share the same political ideology; the difference is that Pelosi isn't timid like they are. As a result, it appears as if Pelosi's ascent means the party is moving left, when in reality Pelosi is someone who unambiguously stands for the ideas central to the Democratic party.
In short, Pelosi represents a change in clarity, and not a change in ideology.
And this is what I mean by "pave the road". Pelosi and the Democrats in congress need to make their positions clear and strong, and have a positive agenda that stands in opposition to what the Republican majorities are going to shove down the American people's throats. The Democrats got screwed in last week's election in part because the road they were on was not clearly defined. They don't need to pick a different road. They need to pave the road. And Nancy Pelosi helps in that quest.
P.S. Oh, and the phrase "San Francisco liberal" is a slanderous relic of the Eisenhower-McCarthy days, and those who use it need significant mental help.
I've heard a lot of armchair analysis (presumably Ikea-bought armchairs, of course) of the implications surrounding the ascent of Rep. Nancy Pelosi to the position of House Minority Leader. The idea is that this signifies a left turn for Democrats. Some Democrats (on tv, in blogs and elsewhere) warn against this, while Republicans (again on tv, in blogs and elsewhere) are licking their lips in anticipation of opposing a "San Francisco liberal".
TFM would like to say: Slow down there, Bessie.
Just because Pelosi voted against the Persian Gulf of Tonkin resolution last month, it doesn't make her a radical fringe liberal. And just because Pelosi comes from San Francisco, ground-zero for progressive thought in America, this does not signify a left turn for the Democratic party. TAPPED points out, for instance, that the leadership positions of house Democrats are more based in politics than specific policy positions.
Furthermore, Pelosi does NOT represent a turn to the left for the Democratic party. Thing is, it depends on what your definition of "turn" is, hehe. The core positions of the Democratic party have essentially been the same through the entire Bush presidency, and the entire midterm campaign. The problem was that those positions were blurred and obscured by the Democrats' timidity and reluctance to stand up to Bush on just about anything leading up to November, especially on Iraq. Hence we get bloggers all over the place pulling out that Harry S Truman quote, saying that if voters had to choose between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they will always take the real Republican.
Pelosi has expressed the viewpoint of the solid liberal base of the party, and voted against the Iraq resolution. She shows no timidity, while Gephardt Daschle etc have showed so much of it. Both Nancy and the boys share the same political ideology; the difference is that Pelosi isn't timid like they are. As a result, it appears as if Pelosi's ascent means the party is moving left, when in reality Pelosi is someone who unambiguously stands for the ideas central to the Democratic party.
In short, Pelosi represents a change in clarity, and not a change in ideology.
And this is what I mean by "pave the road". Pelosi and the Democrats in congress need to make their positions clear and strong, and have a positive agenda that stands in opposition to what the Republican majorities are going to shove down the American people's throats. The Democrats got screwed in last week's election in part because the road they were on was not clearly defined. They don't need to pick a different road. They need to pave the road. And Nancy Pelosi helps in that quest.
P.S. Oh, and the phrase "San Francisco liberal" is a slanderous relic of the Eisenhower-McCarthy days, and those who use it need significant mental help.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home